OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[Winfield Hill]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote...

Christian Rausch wrote:

At the bottom of the first column of p.432, H&H mention that the standard
transistor current source runs quieter than shot-noise-limited. Anybody
out there who knows a little more (literature, math) about this?

Well, perhaps Win can answer what he meant here (more likely if you ask in
sci.electronics.design, I think.) But I'd imagine as a hobbyist-guess that
the "independence" mentioned earlier isn't entirely true for this case --
some of the current is dependent in some way or the probability of emission
is high, so the integral over all the behavior is no longer quite Poisson.

It's simple enough, but a rather powerful result nonetheless. Ohms law says
that current is voltage divided by the resistance, so current-source noise
density is given by ac voltage-noise density divided by the ac resistance,
namely i_n = (e_n + sqrt(4kTR)) / (R + r_e). Manipulating equations on AoE
page 436, we see that e_n = (4kT r_e/2)^1/2 (ignoring r_bb). So if the dc
voltage across the emitter resistor, Ie*R, is greater than 50 to 100mV, so
I*R >> kT/qI, then the current-source noise density is largely determined
by the bias resistor's Johnson noise density, i_n = sgrt(4kT/R), and not
the transistor's shot noise. This can be used to create a nearly-perfect
quiet current source, using a moderate to high bias voltage (even 100 to
500V), regulated from a modestly-quiet voltage source.


--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

If you do not allow yourself to explore the worst possible scenario then
there can be no contingency planning. The insurgents do in fact regard
the American-friendly Iraqis as collaborators and traitors, as evidenced
by their acts, speech, and published propaganda.


The bottom line is: what is John Kerry going to do that is materially
different from what is being done now?

War is far more than material- you are no better than Bush who relegates
the military to toys in a sandbox. The military actions are just one
component of an overarching strategy to achieve the objective. There is
no overarching strategy in Iraq and there is not even an overarching
strategy for the global war on terror- in fact if there had been one for
the global war, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. The problem
the strategists are having is finding a means to translate Bush's
"moral" mandates into a strategic plan. This is the official position of
the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. Please
explain to me what kind of nutcase country will have their premier war
fighting institute instructing the senior military leadership of
tomorrow on the seriously flawed actions employed in the present but
this sorry-assed excuse for a commander-in-chief?

Not the meaningless rhetoric
like "I would do everything differently". That is pure B.S. and the
voters see thru it. All that I've heard from Kerry is that he would
put more troups into Iraq, then he wouldn't; he would get U.N.
assistance-NATO is there now. If the Army is failing in Iraq is he
going to fire the top commanders and bring in new ones? I would really
like to know the answer to that question.

You haven't invested 5 seconds into finding out what Kerry's plan is-
Kerry will establish a UN coalition with real responsibilities for the
participants, completely reorganize the establishment of Iraqi security
training, and accelerate the completion of high impact reconstruction
projects that employ and benefit the most people.

What he is saying right now IS NOT resonanting with the voters and his
polls show it.

[..snipped more irrelevant ignorance...]

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Well, they could always vote for Bush. That would be the intelligent
way to vote.

I never second guess why people vote or don't vote. That's a personal
decision. I would never call your vote for Kerry stupid. To call a
vote "stupid" is, by itself, a stupid thing to say.

I can't even read your garbage any more because you're so far out in
"left" field. Here is the deal- the 2004 presidential race is not an
election. We have this seriously criminal idiot for a president who is
using every trick in the book to mislead and deceive the American
public- who he intends to rob, abuse, and manipulate. The average person
is no more making a decision to vote for Bush than he/she would be said
to be making a decision to give their money to a con artist or swindler.

 

[Guy Macon]

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

DNA is a self replicating machine. It does this with no help from
anybody, as in the usual sense meant by such a statement. There was no
technology in the days of the primal soup 4 billion years ago.

Can you give a reference for that claim? Or at least, tell me how you know?

Don't hold your breath; it's wrong. DNA cannot replicate without the
complex support system found in a cell. Whatever the first replicator
in the primordial soup was, it was *not* DNA.

Just one more obvious error from Kevin "Many can't accept that I am
formally enough qualified in science such that I am not out to lunch
on the basic issues" Aylward, Crackpot Supreme.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wednesday 22 September 2004 09:28 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:

OTOH, one of our chums has written about mystical matters. I find those
far more difficult to comprehend and I am far from accepting any of it
(mysticism, I mean).

Aw, Shucks. I see how a lot of my stuff is difficult to comprehend, and

there is a lot of hokum out there which frankly, my speil is (I'm ass-u-
me-ing) indistinguishable from most of the lot, at least, to mere
mortals. ;-) And it can be difficult to comprehend even for people
who _do_ care about it, I'm further ass-u-me-ing.

I have been kind of hoping for someone to show some kind of interest
in the possibility of some new information being "discovered" that
would show a broader perspective of things than most of us have now,
but of course, it's entirely feasible, and probably considered likely
by most, that I'm quite insane and on flights of fancy, in which case,
I'd like to ask people if they find my little stories at all entertaining,
or if I'm really blowing smoke that's merely annoying.

And, of course, it's my delusions themselves that impel me to present
them as Absolute Truth, and give me the idea that it's Vitally Important
to get the word out.

But.

1. It works for me.
2. There is at least one other person on the planet that's in alignment
with me, and that's whoever wrote http://www.godchannel.com .
3. Naturally, I'm a nut case - I actually do believe that if something
isn't done, it will be the end of the world, at least as we know it.
Luckily, I haven't thrown away the little sane part that keeps me
out from behind bars. (so far, knock on wood. ;-) )

And, last but not least, there _are_ "exercises" that you can do,
that _can_ produce results observable by the one doing the exercise,
but they involve unfamiliar thought patterns, which puts up your
first, second, and third lines of mental resistance. ;-)

Oh, well, if anybody wants to know how to be God, just say the
word, I'll tell you where you can find out!

(hint - inside yourself).

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelati
ons@hotmail.com> wrote (in <41525102.64A82892@hotmail.com&gt about 'Ping
Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:

Another pair that get me are alternate and alternative. US use seems to
avoid much use of alternative - yet, again, the meanings are very
distinct.

US and British English are different in this case. It might be too
simple to say that US 'alternate' = British 'alternative', but it's
nearly true.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Allan Herriman]

On 22 Sep 2004 23:11:22 GMT, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Chris Holmes <seymour_bunzzERASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
Chris Holmes <seymour_bunzzERASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

Zorpetus wrote:

Is there any modem connection sniffer hardware/software?

I mean a device (tap) that could be connected to a phone line,
and to record network traffic made over dial-up connection over
that telephone line (for V.90 protocol for example). I am not
reffering to those "com port sniffer" or "modem sniffers" that
have to be installed on the "target" PC, but something that would
be used outside the house, by tapping the telephone lines.


Any hint and/or link is more than welcome!

And of course - I need it only for information purpose!

Yes, this should be possible. In fact, I heard about one device that
could sniff a modem (external) connection from a good distance by
"watching" the TX and RX activity LEDs on the front panel!


I find this difficult to believe for modern modems.
The bits are simply too fast, and to make them visible all recent modems
that I've seen have some sort of pulse-stretcher to make them more visible.

For modern modems I agree completely. I forgot to mention that this
setup was with a 1200 or 2400 baud modem, something along those lines.

However, sniffing a V.90 should be possible by tapping the phone line, I
would think.

Well, yes.
Sniffing anything is possible, V90 is a bit harder than V21, as you've got
to split the line, and work out the echo cancellation that both modems
are doing.

This would be much easier if you can tap inside the phone exchange, to
access the digital signals directly. That way, you don't suffer the
extra AD conversion and its attendant 'distortion'.

If it's a legal tap, you should have no problem getting into the
exchange.

Regards,
Allan

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
<kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <citdll$h5$3@blue.rahul.net&gt about
'[OT]: The not-so-democratic Democrats', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:

In article <118afaeb.0409221415.78445ef1@posting.google.com>, Product
developer <jdurban@vorel.com> wrote:[...]
Has anyone ever seen Bloggs and Rovaline at the same time?

I sure haven't.

.. but then I think that Joe Montana and Barry Mannalo are the same
person too.

They may be, but Barry Manilow is a different person.

These dreadful spelling mistakes invalidate your whole claim to be a
sentient being. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Richard Henry]

"Mike" <comixnewb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e700945.0409271916.7d0a91d9@posting.google.com...

Hi I was wondering if there was some way to 'blind' a spy cam. I have
heard of using 'white noise' to disable a bug or wiretap but I am not
sure if you can do it to a hidden camera. I don't know were it is in
my house but I know that I am under surveillance.(people at school
repeat things that I said at home,in my room, to my self) I have heard
that IRLEDS could blind a camera but you would propably need to know
were it was.

Aluminum foil. Lots of aluminum foil. Cover every surface to be sure to
get the hole where the camera is looking through.

Just to be sure, wrap yourself in aluminum foil, also.

 

[xray]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:30:06 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote (in <HZt4d.5647$Co1.4440@trnddc02&gt about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
You Are One With
Nirvana.

No, he's One Without Nirvana.

Nirvana was never the same without one -- Cobain.

 

[Richard Henry]

"Arie de Muynck" <Sorry_I_hate_spam@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:4159a009$0$65124$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:R_g6d.4278$8H1.3812@trnddc08...
On Monday 27 September 2004 02:13 am, Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com
did deign to grace us with the following:

BTW, I can go to the UK and produce a letter, sent by Recorded
Delivery and dated before the start of the season, that correctly
predicts the winner of the Rugby World Cup, No forgery, either.

OK, I give up. How?


Send one lettre for each contestant...

Reminds me of the Monday Night Football scam. Suppose you got an email
every Monday morning for six weeks straight correctly predicting the
point-spread winner of that night's game. How much would you pay for the
seventh week's prediction?

 

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:10:32 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:56:23 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Tom Seim wrote:

CNN survey: Bush widens lead in Electoral College
Kerry holds tenuous leads in six key states

The so-called CNN "survey" is NOT *scientific* and it is important to
understand this- it is not a quantifiable scientific survey of any kind-
it is a "hunch"-and the coincidence of agreement with their political
support makes this a FRAUDULENT excuse for a news report far in excess
of the fabricated CBS scandal. CNN CONCEALS this fact from the
inexperienced reader by quickly glossing over their source data by
citing unspecified polls, interviews with campaign officials- quoting
out of context, and interviews with un-named so-called political
analysts. Quite a lot HAND WAVING here! This is a DISGRACE to American
JOURNALISM.



Quite right - it is simply a summary of the results of several
different scientific surveys conducted recently (unless you consider
companies like Gallup unscientific, of course). How very unlike the
professional, impartial poll of a nationwide random selection of some
Jewish people, that came to a different (and of course far more
reliable!) conclusion.

WHAT "DIFFERENT" CONCLUSION IS THAT, STUPID?!! The AJC survey is a poll
of US Jews, the fraudulent CNN survey is story about the electoral
college vote outcome. If you at least demonstrate some intelligence in
your trolls that would be one thing-BUT NOW YOU COME ACROSS AS THE
IGNORANT TROLL THAT YOU ARE- damned laughable jackass "pimp" for the
sleaze ball UK defense industry.

Nicely reasoned reply! I salute your perspicacity. I could not
possibly gainsay such impeccable logic.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:52:18 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Now, if one of these element-based apps would do schematics with
ISO/European symbols instead of squiggly resistors, I might be tempted.
I could do schematics more easily on a BBC Micro (not terribly good-
looking, though) and far more easily (and good-looking) on an Acorn 5000
than I can on a PC.

---
Since you've got AutoSketch, you ought to be able to make yourself a
library of ISO blocks which you can insert at will into any drawing
you generate, no?

--
John Fields

 

[Guy Macon]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Guy Macon did deign to grace us with the following:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Appearing and producing ANYTHING is both necessary and sufficient. (;-)

Do invisible six-foot tall white rabbits count?

A flow of Living Kundalini from your Root Chakra certainly does, but
only for the one experiencing it. ;-)

Doesn't it make a mess on the floor?

If you do it right, it make a mess on the ceiling.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Michael Robbins
<michael.robbins@us.cibc.com> wrote (in <c6c65b14.0409270651.7504b275@po
sting.google.com&gt about 'Get me started: Alternator, ballast resistor,
electromech...', on Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

I mean that the Tach is connected to the console by a wire. The console
is connected to the alternator and wall outlet by four wires: One to the
outlet (white, not ground), one to the Tach Terminal, one to the Field
Terminal and one to the Ground Terminal. It's all very simple. All the
circuitry is in the console except for the resistor and a diode. Most
of the wires are quite thin.

Apparently, the console uses the Tach to determine how much current to
feed the alternator. I've tried to avoid drawing a diagram because of
variable width fonts, but I'll give it a go. I'd be happy to e-mail you
a prettier one I made, but it doesn't give much more info. I can email
you photographs as well if you're interested. I doubt they'd be
helpful.

The diagram works perfectly in Courier. ASCII art diagrams just require
a monospaced font and no use of tabs, with line length kept well below
80 characters.

OUTLET WHT ------------------ CONSOLE

ALT TACH ------------------ CONSOLE

ALT FLD -----+------------ CONSOLE
|
DIODE
|
ALT GND -----+------+----- CONSOLE
| |
RESISTOR |
| |
B+ -----+ |
|
OUTLET BLK ------------+


The one remaining problem and it's not trivial, is what you mean by

'B+'.

Is that resistor a big thing or a small thing?

I think that if I replace the console with a circuit that will provide a
variable current, using Tach as feedback, then I can do away with the
console.
snip
If you mean 'variable field current', then the answer is yes, but it's
not a trivial task.

I think that's what I mean. It looks like the console is getting
current from the outlet and feeding it to the field terminal. From my
discussions with the OEM and looking at the circuit, it seems like the
machine alters the current until the Tach is right.

If that is what is wanted for the machine to do its job, yes. The user
has to maintain a constant speed as shown on the tach meter?

I suppose it may be easy to copy a frequency counting circuit to
determine the RPM from the Tach. Using the frequency, I could determine
whether I want to increase or decrease the current by comparing it to a
fixed table, but I've never tried to regulate current.

You can use analogue feedback; you don't need a look-up table. Count the
frequency, convert the frequency to a control voltage and use that to
control the current.

Would it be more advisable to remove the resistor and replace it with a
rheostat or some other variable load?

Not if you want to retain automatic control.

Why would it be difficult to vary the field current? If it's not too
difficult to explain, would you elaborate?

What I mean is that the design of a voltage-controlled current source at
the power level likely to be involved requires a skilled power
electronics designer.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Rolavine]

From: Rich Grise null@example.net


Um, isn't that allegedly supposed to happen in Iraq?

Yes, I didn't want a voting ballot, just wanted to see who was on the ballot.

Rocky

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <415A201B.5050406@nospam.com&gt about '[OT]: The not-so-
democratic Democrats', on Wed, 29 Sep 2004:

All we did was drive them out of Kuwait, which Iraq invaded to
punish them for slant drilling into their oil reserves-

Huh?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <415A1321.9030200@nospam.com&gt about '48 Nobel Laureates
Endorse Kerry', on Wed, 29 Sep 2004:

By reducing funding for scientific research, they
are undermining the foundation of America's future.

Says it all, really!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Mike Page]

Steve Sands wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<td1jl0t868i7rus1n15lhbq2nt4greufq7@4ax.com>...

Sick of all the American politics on this group? Here's an
alternative...


There you go: we have politics here, too.


You must be the dread Bloggs of the U.K. Nice to see that the U.S.
does not have a monopoly on whackos.

Whilst not my view (the anti-war stuff), it is the view of a significant
sector of the UK population (there was a record-breaking demonstration
against the war some months ago). We're becoming a nation (continent?)
of pacifists - scary.

--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk
Quiet! Tony's battling the forces of conservatism, whoever we are.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mike Page <mike@SCRUBeclectic-
CAPSweb.BLAMEco.SWENuk> wrote (in <xd-dndLCUoVqw8fcRVn-
vA@eclipse.net.uk&gt about 'Labour Party Conference Report', on Wed, 29
Sep 2004:

Whilst not my view (the anti-war stuff), it is the view of a significant
sector of the UK population (there was a record-breaking demonstration
against the war some months ago). We're becoming a nation (continent?)
of pacifists - scary.

I think we are becoming a nation of cynical iconoclasts. 'Anti-war' is a
gut reaction to the achievements of Blair and Brown, not least that of
brining the Labour Party at least into the 20th century (I notice there
was a step back, regarding rail nationalization) and reducing greatly
the influence of the Loony Left. This treatment is not so different from
that handed out to Herself.

We (collectively) HATE successful people, except Richard Branson. It
does not augur well for our future. Hey, I've been standing too close to
Jeremiah Bloggs. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk